A rant

This post has nothing to do with books, but another topic dear to my heart—the Electoral College. Or rather, the flaws in the Electoral College (which resulted in a certain Texan becoming president without winning the popular vote—but that’s a topic for another day).

Recently, some Republicans in California decided that they want to reform the EC. Great idea, in theory. They want to allocate California’s 55 electoral votes based on the winners of each Congressional district, instead of the winner-take-all system that most other states use. If every state in the U.S. decided to do this, I would be all for it. Then the EC vote might actually resemble the popular vote. BUT, if California is the only large state to do it, the Democratic candidate will be screwed, since a large minority of the state’s electoral votes would be siphoned away. (According to this article, it would be the equivalent of losing Ohio.)

Of course, the Republicans know this would give them a huge advantage, but as usual they are pretending they are looking out for the interests of the common man. A consultant who is pushing the plan says “We're unlocking 55 electoral votes, and making it so candidates have to compete for them…. Candidates are not going to be able to ignore California. That would benefit all Californians."

Yeah, it might benefit Californians, at the expense of every other citizen in this country...

Now, I am no fan of the Electoral College. But if this “reform” goes through, it will become even more of a joke. If every state has its own system for allocating electoral votes, we will no longer even be able to pretend that it is a fair and accurate way to elect the president.

This initiative will go on the ballot next June, assuming the supporters get enough signatures. We can only hope that the people of California will see through this charade and reject it.